Newstead House

Updated 25 July 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection team consisted of one inspector, one Specialist Advisor [who was a registered nurse] and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type

Newstead House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

Inspection activity started and ended on 16 July 2019.

What we did before the inspection

When preparing for and carrying out this inspection: We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. This included details about incidents the provider must notify us about, such as abuse; and we sought feedback from the local authority, a social care professional who works with the service and Healthwatch. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections.

We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection, we spent time with people in the communal areas of the home and we saw how staff supported the people they cared for. We spoke with eight people living at the home, and three relatives to gain their views about the care provided. We also spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager, two nurses, five care staff. In addition, we sought the views of one health and social care professional, who supports people who live at the home.

We reviewed a range of records. This included two people's care documents and multiple medication and records. We also looked at records relating to the management of the home and checks undertaken by the registered manager. For example, systems for managing any complaints, checks on medicines administered, three recruitment files and the provider’s audits on the care provided, and action plans arising from these.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Updated 25 July 2019

About the service

Newstead House is a nursing home providing personal and nursing care to 38 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 46 people.

Newstead House is split up into three separate units “The Home” [for people requiring residential care] and “the Wing” and “Garden Wing” [supports people who require nursing care].

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

• People enjoyed living at the home and were complimentary about the way it was managed.

• People, relatives and staff told us they saw the provider and registered manager regularly and found them approachable.

• Staff understood risks to people’s safety and supported them to stay as safe as possible.

• There were enough staff to care for people at times people wanted assistance.

• People were supported to have their medicines safely and checks were undertaken to ensure these were administered as prescribed.

• The risk of infections and accidental harm was reduced, as staff used the knowledge and equipment provided to do this.

• Staff spoke affectionately about the people they cared for. People were confident to request support and reassurance from staff when they wanted this, and staff took time to provide this in the ways people preferred.

• People told us staff respected their rights to make their own decisions about their lives and care. Where people needed support to make some decisions staff assisted them, using people’s preferred ways of communicating.

• Staff had received training and developed the skills they needed to care for people, through induction and on-going training. People told us staff knew how to help them and knew what to do if they suspected anyone was at risk of harm.

• People had good access to other health and social care professionals and staff followed any advice given.

• People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this.

• Staff ensured people had opportunities to do things which they enjoyed, and people were supported to keep in touch with others and religious practices that were important to them.

• The views of people, relatives and other health and social care professionals were considered when people’s care was assessed, planned and reviewed, so people’s needs continued to be met, and based on people’s preferences.

• Procedures were in place to take any learning from complaints and to further improve people’s care.

• People’s wishes for their care at the end of their lives had been planned and the views of their relatives considered.

• The registered manager and provider checked the quality of the care provided and encouraged suggestions from people and staff to improve people’s care further.

• The registered manager kept up to date with best practice developments, so they could develop the care provided further.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection (and update)

The last rating for this service was Good (published 31 December 2016).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.